A & R Laundry Corp. v. A.T.E.Z. L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A & R Laundry Corp. v. A.T.E.Z. L. L. C.

268 A.D.2d 397, 701 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 202

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 397 (A & R Laundry Corp. v. A.T.E.Z. L. L. C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A & R Laundry Corp. v. A.T.E.Z. L. L. C., 268 A.D.2d 397, 701 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alla, to recover damages for breach of contract and for a judgment declaring that a lease between the parties extends through July 31, 2004, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated February 2, 1999, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and to declare that the lease between the parties extends through July 31, 2004.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on its second and third causes of action. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case for summary judgment and the defendant failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact which requires a trial of the action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Richter v Herman, 240 AD2d 556; Fresse v City of New York, 238 AD2d 374; Xenakis v Waldbaum, Inc., 237 AD2d 433).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alla, to recover damages for breach of contract and for a judgment declaring that a lease between the parties extends through July 31, 2004, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated February 2, 1999, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract and to declare that the lease between the parties extends through July 31, 2004.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on its second and third causes of action. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case for summary judgment and the defendant failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact which requires a trial of the action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562; Richter v Herman, 240 AD2d 556; Fresse v City of New York, 238 AD2d 374; Xenakis v Waldbaum, Inc., 237 AD2d 433).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 397, 701 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-r-laundry-corp-v-atez-l-l-c-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack